How Andrew Robb voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should change the laws governing Senate elections to allow voters more direct control over the flow of preferences, whether they vote above or below the line

Division Andrew Robb Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Mar 2016, 3:27 PM – Representatives Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with Senate amendments

Show detail

The majority voted to agree with the amendments that were made in the Senate. This means that the bill can now be passed, because both the House and the Senate have agreed to its wording.

What does this bill do?

The bills digest explains that:

[This bill] constitutes the first response of the Government to the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters from its inquiry into the 2013 Federal Election, particularly in regards to the recommendations to change the Senate voting system. The recommended changes to the Senate electoral system by the Committee followed the election of senators on the basis of very small primary votes, and a perception that the group voting ticket system was being manipulated by some parties to direct preferences in a way that was not consistent with voter expectations.

The bill has three parts:

  • First, it gets rid of group voting tickets and requires citizens voting 'above the line' to allocate at least six preferences so that their vote will only be counted against the candidates they preferenced and won't go to other parties that they didn't vote for at all (note that that the bill has a savings provision "that allow voters who allocate at least one vote above the line to have their ballot paper count as formal and the preferences counted")

  • Second, it prohibits an individual from being the registered officer of more than one political party at once

  • Third, it lets parties to submit a party logo to the AEC to be added to their party registration to be printed on the ballot papers in black and white.

Read more in the bills digest.

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a modest majority

24th Feb 2016, 4:49 PM – Representatives Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree with the main idea

Show detail

The majority voted to agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

The House can now discuss the bill in more detail.

What does this bill do?

The bills digest explains that:

[This bill] constitutes the first response of the Government to the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters from its inquiry into the 2013 Federal Election, particularly in regards to the recommendations to change the Senate voting system. The recommended changes to the Senate electoral system by the Committee followed the election of senators on the basis of very small primary votes, and a perception that the group voting ticket system was being manipulated by some parties to direct preferences in a way that was not consistent with voter expectations.

The bill has three parts:

  • First, it gets rid of group voting tickets and requires citizens voting 'above the line' to allocate at least six preferences so that their vote will only be counted against the candidates they preferenced and won't go to other parties that they didn't vote for at all (note that that the bill has a savings provision "that allow voters who allocate at least one vote above the line to have their ballot paper count as formal and the preferences counted")

  • Second, it prohibits an individual from being the registered officer of more than one political party at once

  • Third, it lets parties to submit a party logo to the AEC to be added to their party registration to be printed on the ballot papers in black and white.

Read more in the bills digest.

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Andrew Robb was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.